Now, given that both ISRO and Roscosmos are planning on landing on the moon, I believe that a Lunar Seismic Network could be done by supplying a couple of instruments and sanding one or two landers.BTW, China would be the ideal partner there, regrettably.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 01/02/2014 04:07 amIt might be better to offer the lander, and have other countries equip it with instruments (and a better camera)I assumed the context was that other countries may land on Mars, and if they do so, they are going to want to design their own landers (because that is the point). It is easier to offer up an instrument for somebody else's lander than it is to try and convince them to pay you for your own lander.
It might be better to offer the lander, and have other countries equip it with instruments (and a better camera)
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/02/2014 01:45 pmQuote from: Dalhousie on 01/02/2014 04:07 amIt might be better to offer the lander, and have other countries equip it with instruments (and a better camera)I assumed the context was that other countries may land on Mars, and if they do so, they are going to want to design their own landers (because that is the point). It is easier to offer up an instrument for somebody else's lander than it is to try and convince them to pay you for your own lander.Besides, NASA is more trustable as an instrument supplier partner than a LV/lander module partner.I would like to point out that, in this budget reatricted times, NASA appears to be replicating the SAC-D/Aquarius model with ISRO for a radar mission. And in the end, they did kept their promised instruments for ExoMars.The problem with Mars, is that the are three or four proven EDLs for Mars, and all of them are JPL's. So it's very difficult for NASA to partner just on instruments since just now ESA and Roscosmos are developing the necessary technologies.Now, given that both ISRO and Roscosmos are planning on landing on the moon, I believe that a Lunar Seismic Network could be done by supplying a couple of instruments and sanding one or two landers.BTW, China would be the ideal partner there, regrettably.
The US could contribute the lander, just like they are with InSight.
And JPL does not have a monopoly of landing on Mars. The Phoenix/Insight lander was developed by Lockheed-Martin, based on the work by Martin Marietta for Langley with Viking.
Um, pretty much every Mars mission is done with JPL contracting Lockheed Martin space systems. Not even sure if this list is complete
Quote from: Dalhousie on 01/02/2014 11:32 pmThe US could contribute the lander, just like they are with InSight.There is no U.S. funding mechanism that would lead to NASA flying another Mars seismic lander. And no other country is going to pay the U.S. for a Mars lander when they would prefer to pay themselves to build a lander.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 01/02/2014 11:37 pmAnd JPL does not have a monopoly of landing on Mars. The Phoenix/Insight lander was developed by Lockheed-Martin, based on the work by Martin Marietta for Langley with Viking.Um, pretty much every Mars mission is done with JPL contracting Lockheed Martin space systems. Not even sure if this list is completehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Space_Systems#Sensing_.26_Exploration_Systems
Langley developed and managed the program in general, and developed the landers. JPL developed or orbiters and managed the science mission.
1-Not quite sure what you are getting at here. 2-There are huge advantages to having a network of seismometers as opposed to one. Locating the position of seismic events is one. Determining the internal structure of Mars is another. Wider coverage is a third. So a future seismic instrument is surely possible, even if there is "no US funding mechanisms".3-Secondly, the seismic instrument is not a US instrument, it is a French one, with support from several other European institutions and JPL. 4-all the instruments on Insight are from Europe examining heatflow and rotation. They are not paying for the lander, the are contributing to a joint mission. Or are you saying that this type of collaboration will not happen in the future?5-there is no obligation for future missions to fly exactly the same payload. The basic lander will have been used three times, with a different set of instruments each time. It has proved successful and adaptable. There are a wide range of issues that can be addressed using a stationary lander.
Thanks for that.However I think you are seriously underestimating the value of having a seismic network.
Thanks for that.However I think you are seriously underestimating the value of having a seismic network.One seismic station tells you that there are earthquakes, that is about all. Two seismic stations will give approximate distance and therefore an approximate position. It will also allow depth determination.Three will triangulate position, provide good depth information, and allow measurement of the properties and structure of the martian interior.|We currently only have such data for Earth and the Moon. Mars is the only other body in the solar system we are likely to get such data for any time in the next century. These data will not only tell us about Mars, but also how planets evolve.Are these more important than some of the other options? I don't know. But they are important and sooner or later they will be flown.
The analysis of the Mars option at the end of the main report stated that a Mars mission would produce good science and fit within the cap. However, the Mars missions selected by the Survey (i.e., the Flagship caching rover) filled up the Mars mission bucket. Since geophysics was still a high priority, the lunar network (which is projected to be cheaper for each station) got the nod as the only other world where a seismic network would be placed within a New Frontiers cost cap.
Of the possible NF missions, a lunar geophysical network is a possibility for NF #5. I suspect that its chances are limited because it will be a new entrant, whereas the missions that win New Frontiers (and Discovery, for that matter) tend to be missions that lost in a previous round and were improved and resubmitted. My guess is that for NF #4 the winner will either be a Venus mission or lunar sample return, both of which lost in the last round. (Comet cryo is also a contender, but that's a tougher mission to keep in the cost cap. The other options are all new ones, although I could see a Trojan tour being relatively easier to get inside the cost cap.)
1-The NF #4 mission lunar sample may need to compete against the Chinese. Their Chang'e 5 & 6 sample return missions include relay orbiters, so they could easily sample the Aitken basin. Given that the solar system is large and the number of missions by all space agencies is small, I hope they do and NASA can go elsewhere.2-Uranus was studied as a flagship, and so the science tradeoff of a New Frontiers Saturn vs. Uranus mission weren't compared. I'd prefer that the Survey left it as an outer planets probe mission since the science from any (even Jupiter if someone finds a magic wand to recreate the test facilities) would be equally compelling.3-The comet sample return requirements don't appear to be crisp in terms of cooling. The mission study was a summary of an earlier study (2007) and the final report just says preserve at least some volatiles. Blackstar, any more insight into this?
2-That's not really correct. The gas giants panel did consider New Frontiers at Uranus (or Neptune, although the Neptune trajectories are not good). That would have been a flyby and they considered the science return too low for the cost. You mention "probe" and I'm not sure if you mean atmospheric probe, but they didn't want one for Jupiter, they wanted it for Saturn. And I'm sure that it is impossible to do for Uranus or Neptune unless it is deployed from an orbiter.I don't know why it could not come in under $1 billion. After all, it's a pretty simple spacecraft. However, transit times alone increase costs (you spend a lot of money simply waiting to arrive at the target). And this was also consistent with some studies done around 2006 that all concluded that you can get to Jupiter for under a billion dollars, but you cannot get to Saturn for under a billion dollars, even if all you are doing is shooting a brick out there. The economics work against it.
Maybe they will be carried along with other payloads.
There are missions some of which Blackstar has outlined above that are of considerably more scientific importance than what you are outlining here.